View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:37 pm




Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
 Newest Version – Theory of Intelligent Design 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Massachusetts
Post Newest Version – Theory of Intelligent Design
The theory just had another months long 80+ pages of exercise this time at Rational Skepticism which helped improve its content.

The introduction now states all that is needed to show its premise in true, in the very first paragraph, using the basic core logic of science and operational definition from models of David Heiserman that bridge Biology and Electronics into Intelligence. Most of the other sections had a good going over to further improve them too.

Quote:
Introduction

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby electromagnetic force created bonds (covalent, polar covalent, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) are the “behavioral cause” of molecular intelligence, which is the “intelligent cause” of cellular intelligence, which is the “intelligent cause” of multicellular intelligence. In this way an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in multiple levels of self-similar organization to produce an entity behaviorally in their own image, likeness.

The operational definition of intelligence is an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) guided sensor-addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions. Computer models show this common to all levels intelligence mechanism reduces to four necessary requirements. (1) Something for intelligence to control (motors, muscles, microplasts). (2) Sensor addressable memory to store successful motor actions to be taken in response to sensed environmental conditions. (3) Sensory feedback to gauge failure or success in actions taken here called “confidence”. (4) A guess mechanism to try a new action. Good guesses as in crossover exchange safely controls design variation to produce offspring each different from each other (not clones) and gene level recombination of small conserved domains which are the nuts and bolts and motor parts of complex molecular machinery that all together keep living things alive.

From the perspective of intelligence its genome is not a sewing "pattern" or “blueprint” showing where each cell must go and what to differentiate into to achieve a design, instead, the genome stores learned responses to sensed environmental conditions and as a collective of cells design emerges from self-organization. In the social amoeba (slime molds) along with a self-replicating centrosomal control system for advanced migration behavior their genome encodes for extremely adaptable cells. In the process of each meeting their needs these social cells intuitively work together to form streaming or solid multicellular colonies of various designs.

At all intelligence levels, entities who do not serve a useful purpose in their society do poorly among those who can connect together so that the needs of each are being met. Whether created from molecules or cells or organs or organisms, intelligence must on their own find a place where they serve a useful purpose in their collective society. In human learning, newly produced social stem cells of the brain form new synaptic encoded neural networks, their epigenetically controlled genome greatly changes its gene expression in response to learning to serve a useful purpose in their highly specialized cellular society. At the next intelligence level this form a human brain that learns to serve a useful purpose in our highly specialized collective human society.

Successful designs remain in the collective molecular (RNA/DNA) memory of their population to keep going the billions year old cycle of life learning process which replicates previous contents of memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work a little better for us. Resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where there is always a predecessor of similar molecular design present in memory for the descendant design to emerge from. As a result, in our lineage is a first human couple, a chromosomal Adam and Eve from a population of beings who had at least a single copy/allele of the chromosome fusion unique to the human genome design.

This theory of intelligent design connects current knowledge from physics, chemistry, biology, to coherently explain why living intelligent things are a product of intelligent causation, and living things such as ourselves were no accident, life was meant to be…

Entire theory in MS Word format including links to computer models and source code in MS Word format:
http://sites.google.com/site/intelligen ... Design.doc

To open in Google-viewer:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... ZmN2NiNTEx

_________________
Premise:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Google Viewer
MS Word Format


Sun Sep 04, 2011 4:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 am
Posts: 2538
Post Re: Newest Version – Theory of Intelligent Design
That Rational Skepticism thread voiced a lot of a familiarity:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/theory-of-intelligent-design-t24232.html

Quote:
You have no idea as to what we all about to be exposed to. Gary has been ranting about this over on talkrat for months about this. Every time anyone asks for a simple explanation Gary posts a wall of repeating text. He has never defined what the "certain features" might be that reside at the core of his not-even-a-theory. Soon he will post a copy of some jibberish computer code that supposedly supports his idea, but will never fully explain how this supports said idea. When challenged to cite where his educational writing has been published, or who adopted his teaching material, he will evade any response. In short, enjoy the ride while it lasts for I fear Gary won't endure long here where we operate by a more stringent set of rules.


Quote:
Gary, your entire post is an incoherent mess that seems to rest entirely on a camouflaged attempt to re-label known laws and mechanics into "intelligent design".

It looks like what you are doing is simply taking the mechanics of physics and chemistry, relabelling it "molecular intelligence" and then arguing that intelligent design exists. Well, doh.

Take your example of self-replicating RNA, which you describe as a "unimolecular intelligence". We happen to know how these self-replicating RNA's work very well, and we have no need to re-invent a new term for already existing and very well known laws of physics and chemistry.

You are changing what is understood by "intelligence" and simply inserting any natural process capable of producing a build-up of complexity, or which functions by replication with inheritance, into the definition. Under that paradigm, simple crystal-growth would qualify as "intelligent design". It's a ludicrous way of trying to smuggle "intelligent design" into science.


Quote:
It's not a theory. A hypothesis becomes a theory when scientists (not one or two) in that field accept it as having enough evidence to be superior to all other hypothesises regarding the same phenomenon. In biology you have the Theory of Evolution which describes how life changes. In biology you also have many hypothesises regarding abiogenesis (how life started) but no theory of abiogenesis as none has enough evidence to show that it is the best explanation.

IDists seem to want to skip that very important step.


Gary's response to that was to quote from the Discovery Institute's definition of scientific theory!

Quote:
and don't even mention the fact that Gary doesn't provide a method of falsification, and will rave to the high heavens when asked to provide this vitally needed methodology. Gary doesn't have any interest in conforming to the commonly accepted scientific method. Much like his redefinition of terms he wants to redefine the basic tenets of science so that he can shoehorn this "theory" into places it won't fit.


Quote:
that is a problem because you just magicked the wording "intelligence" from the "Nonrandom behavior of matter". Givne that you then say that design is associated with intelligence (which it is) you have in effect magicked up an association that this "Nonrandom behavior of matter" is in fact "design".

Seriously the intro is circular and presenting a fait accompli. I'm no scientist but I rely on science papers to support ideas to justify a position and this doesn't make me feel comfortable.


Quote:
The cells are not "aware" of anything. This is intellectual dishonesty at its best. Your wordplay is clever, but incorrect. If by aware you mean the cells react to a chemical reaction that happens inside the body which triggers the activation of the stem cell, then sure the cell is "aware." If you mean that the cell somehow "knows" i.e. has an intelligence behind it, then no you would be mistaken.


Quote:
If only robotics was the same as biological structures. Fail. Even still, my father would have words with you. Computers are not intelligent. They follow their programming, in reaction to stimulation. Computers do it quickly and oftentimes gives the appearance of intelligence, BUT they still follow initial programming. Unfortunately, unlike in natural biological systems, robotics and computers do not have a means of self duplicating their "programming" and/or reproducing to pass on its programming "DNA" mutations cannot happen and so computers need an intelligent source to improve them, but biological systems do not.


Quote:
A proper thesis statement needs to introduce the material (in this case intelligent design) state the aim of the writing (in this case demonstrate the evidence for an intelligent design) and explain without going into detail the main summary of the procedure (i.e. your experiment which btw needs to be repeatable by other scientists). For example: "The hypothesis for intelligent design is a hypothesis which argues that certain biological functions came about due to an intelligent causation which is demonstrated by the experimentation on developing cells on the molecular level."

The thesis made here offers no recourse to figure how you came to that conclusion but you started with the conclusion and said it was enough.


Quote:
Nonrandom behavior does NOT EQUAL intelligent behavior. If I drop an object here on earth it will always FALL. Why? Because the object I am dropping has a smaller mass than that of Earth's core. Elements fuse in a nonrandom order because of simplicity of forming bonds and the scientific force demanding stability. Natural explanations are satisfactory when it comes to explaining these nonrandom behavior. Likewise, in biology natural selection and chemical reactions inside cells and cell structures explain "nonrandom behaviors."


Quote:
You seem to be a knowledgeable person about computer models; however, the correlation between computer information and genetics, biology, and evolution is non-existent unless you make a long stretch to connect them. I do not, as well as others, give a damn about a thing that a human created to process information. In the code you gave, that human I'd imagine is you. You are playing the part of that intelligence behind the computer. Biology does not work like that. Unless you can give verifiable and observable evidence to the contrary. In your OP you made the claim that cells were intelligent, aware, and learned. I refuted it saying that cells reacted via chemical reactions. That is observable. That is verifiable. Where is your verification. Where are your observable data to connect the intelligence one finds in computer models to the "intelligence" one finds in biology?


Quote:
Intelligent Design is not a theory, it's a rectally extracted blind assertion with fuck all by way of evidential support. Its entire grounding, as outlined in the infamous Wedge Strategy document, is nothing more than a duplicitous application of the fallacy of the stolen concept writ large. By nailing your colours to the mast in this manner, you have already presented your your cosmic curtain-twitcher, and no more need be said.


Quote:
Intelligent design is NOT a theory in the scientific sense. It is a proposition based on a religious doctrine, unsupported by ANY credible evidence..

In philosophical terms intelligent design is merely a rework of the debunked teleological argument for the existence of God. It is based one of the basic logical fallacies; argument from incredulity/argument from lack of imagination.

You claim to be a published educational writer. Whether that is relevant depends on the content of your published works. Say 3 or 4 citations for peer reviews of some of your published works would be a big help . So far, I'm afraid you have not managed to establish any credibility.


Quote:
You are piggybacking off of other theories in physics, then claiming there is 'behavior' in atoms that leads to intelligence in molecules and so on, without actually showing this in practice (without resting on other theories). In a 'weak' sense you may be right, but your strong claim is that this is all part of an overarching, intelligent propensity towards Design.

If you are only playing with semantics, and saying that chemical bonding is 'intelligence', then you don't have a theory, or even a new idea, at all. You need to root your theory/idea in a form of intelligence that is distinguishable from natural characteristics of entities.


Quote:
The assertion has been erected that the universe and its contents were purportedly "designed". Therefore asking if you know how to provide proper evidential support for this assertion is perfectly within the bounds of science. It seems you do not know this, and additionally do not know how to support that assertion with proper evidential support, otherwise you would have given the requisite straight answer to my question. Now, do you know how to support this assertion with proper evidential support, or not?


Quote:
The page we are actually on is that like it or not your arguments do not appear to be science, although granted they have a superficial similarity. Your basic definitions are all over the place, you appear to link yourself to a ludicrously discredited organisation, you arrive on a scepticism site requesting 'peer review' (what's wrong with sending it to a science journal for criticism?), and cutting edge anything it most certainly is not. Is that enough review for you?

You are also manifestly unable to answer reasonable questions without trying the drama queen tactic so beloved of forum regulars here, and you appear to think that nobody is going to follow up on your sources just as critically as your proposed 'theory'.


Quote:
People like Gary, and his associated institute, are undermining the scientific enterprise in the USA, one of the main things that lead it into being a superpower, and their victory would spell the end of American technological hegemony.... but they see it as a patriotic duty to wedge their gods in where they don't belong. Textbook religious fundamentalism. Nevermind, there are plenty of other countries in the world that can pick up where the USA leaves off, and they don't need to pretend there are controversies just so they can wedge in their religious bilge.


Quote:
Gary here is a serial time waster. I am unsure why he persists in asking for a review of is work, when any an all attempts to assess it critically (or even seek clarification) will be met with distractions, scorn, ignorance and outright lies/delusions, in various combinations. Not to mention a tendency to copy and past the same walls of text that failed to answer the question the last time.

I would only recommend engaging one Gary Gaulin as long as you derive some amusement from it. There is little else to be gained from such an undertaking.


Quote:
There is no controversy. An animal that is well suited to it's environment will reproduce better than it's less well adapted contemporaries. How can you not see that, even most creationists don't argue that one, they just call it micro evolution or some such guff. Do you think that an animal that is poorly suited to it's environment will survive and produce healthy offspring at the same level as a well suited animal? Why no kangaroos in Antarctica?

I don't have a belief system, I reject belief systems. I know you will choose to igtnore this and claim that no belief is belief, because so many other have tried this moronic line of argument before. 'Off' is not a TV channel, geddit?

Seriously, can you not see how you childish arguments succeed only in making you a laughing stock, while real scientists just get on with real science.


Quote:
Your whole theory is a fallacy of division whereby you take perfectly ordinary intelligence and then chop it to the constituent parts and in what appears to be a miracle of redefining the word intelligence according to a set of criteria that you define it appears that intelligence is found all the way down to the molecules.

So rather than it being emergent in brains, it's an intrinsic property of stuff. You're not new with this trick - every now and then people claiming "consciousness" is a property of matter try that line of argument too. Hey, well fuck me sideways- on page 19 you say "consciousness exists at all levels".

Your redefining existing known and understood chemical and biological activity as "intelligence" according to your own definition is any of fraudulent, delusional or just plain wrong according to the intent. As a paper it is shot with grandiose claims, for example, there is an insufficient precision when you say on page 43 that "Human gender is regulated by two sex chromosomes." when it is more determined by the presence of SRY. We are default female (which kind of makes the Bible and it's derivative the Qur'an load of bollocks given their focus on "Adam").

Overall this is a wishful thinking essay you have written. It will never become accepted science in your lifetime. The only way that critics of this will be silenced is when our Sun expands into its red giant phase and erases life on this planet.


Quote:
No it's not, Gary. You are lying to me and you know it. Please don't lie to me.

There is no mention of an observation that would distinguish between a natural, unintelligent process producing "emergent progression", and one that is intelligently designed, in your theory. Nowhere.

Prove me wrong by quoting me the relvant piece of your theory that specifically mentions such a falsifying observation. If you can't do this, your "theory" is unfalsifiable and therefore doesn't qualifiy as science.

I read EVERY sentence of your theory, and NOWHERE is a method of falsification through observation given. I also copied your entire theory into a text editor and searched for the words "formal" "test" "observe"/"observation" "falsify"/"false"/"falsification" "empirical" "popperian" "methodological" "naturalism" "distinguish"/"separate"/"differentiate"/"tell"/"tell apart"/"mark as different" and finally "prove"/"disprove". None of which returned a hit.

I conclude that you lied to me in and attempt to obfuscate the fact that your "theory" has no possible method of falsification. Prove me wrong. Prove to me that you didn't just lie and quote me the part of your theory that specifically mentions a possible method for falsifying it with an observation that could be made.


Quote:
When you are done dodging and obfuscating, Gary, I have a few questions for you:

Gary, what prediction does your theory make, that I could test? What prediction does your theory make for, say, an evolving laboratory population of E. coli, that would be different and distinguishable from the predictions of the modern synthesis? What observation could be made to test the prediction and falsify evolution or your theory? What could be observed that would make your theory a superior scientific theory with superior explanatory power, over the modern synthesis, for example?

Going to answer any of these questions any time soon, Gary?


Quote:
Putting the conclusion first is good "science" by the standards under which Gary operates. That should be good enough for all of us. He is, after all, far more enlightened than any of us here that may have actually had to conform to standards under which the restrictive mainstream of "science" operates. Gary is breaking new ground and simply by declaring his notions as good "science" he has made it so. Who are we to question any portion of the procedures that allowed him to arrive at this opus?

He alone is also allowed to define any word he so chooses in a manner only he supports (but never does), and thus his "science" is solid, and by the membership here merely responding to this "science" he has achieved the "informal peer review" he so desperately seeks. Gary is about the set the rest of the scientific community on its collective ear and we should count ourselves lucky to have been present when he blessed us with his presence.

Is there anything that would convince Gary that he's barking up a flag pole? No. Gary has not only reached his conclusion regarding his "science" he allows for no possibility that he could be wrong. We should therefore stand in trembling awe of the sheer brilliance we observe in his "science".


Quote:
Computer models do not count. Writing "a section" does not count. What observations can anyone make in the real world to show the presence and/or action of your so-called "intelligence"?

Note these tests must be able to be carried out by anyone, independently of you or your input. In order for this to be possible you need to be very specific, or you need to supply empirical data to support your assertions which others can independently replicate and detail how you arrived at that data. Computer simulations will not cut it for this purpose.

If you can manage this then your work might meet the requirements to be rated as hypothesis, currently all you have is assertion.

And please stop asserting that conditional acceptance of a definition you no longer use by a single individual means that no-one has found a problem with your work.


Quote:
it is not recognised scientific practice to invent your own definitions of what constitutes a "complete" theory. You have also invented your own definition of what constitutes "intelligence". Whatever the details of your claims about molecular intelligence, the fact remains that chemical interactions are not intelligent (and as I have stated are simply driven by kinetic and thermodynamic factors). Complex molecules may have the ability to replicate sequences of molecules which may be used to control biological systems, but this does not make them intelligent (please don't post your definition of intelligence again - it's not a generally recognised definition). This thread is now very long and the main points have become somewhat obscured but the main issues I have with your ideas are as follows:

1. The premise of your "theory" is unjustifiable (because it has no evidential support, is not axiomatic and is not inherently falsifiable) and is also the conclusion of your theory. This leads to circular reasoning. It doesn't matter how long and complex your theory is, it is still essentially a circular argument with no evidential support.

2. You claim to have produced a "complete" theory but I dispute this. If your premise (and conclusion) is that life is "best explained" by an intelligent designer, then your theory in order to be complete must explain the designer.

3. You have not made it clear (despite many requests to do so from other posters) why there is any need for your new "theory" when the current model is successful and has huge quantities of support in evidence of it.

4. You claim that your theory does not rely on religion. However, as point 2 states, if your conclusion is that life was subject to intelligent design, then any attempt to explain the designer must fall back to metaphysical explanations which have religious connotations.

5. As this thread has progressed, your religious agenda has become more and more evident.

6. You seem to think that computer models are somehow a reflection of reality. This is not necessarily (or even very often) the case. A computer model is only as good as the data fed into it (Garbage In Garbage Out).

In conclusion, I do not think that your ideas have any scientific validity whatsoever and would never be published in any reputable scientific journal.


Quote:
Gary's not-actually-a-theory purports to be able to explain phenomena in biology that he claims evolution can't. So I have been asking him several times what his "theory" predicts about, for example, evolving laboratory populations of bacteria, that is different from what evolution predicts.
Gary constantly attacks evolution and hails his own theory as superior. So naturally, we should be able to devise tests, actual laboratory experiments, that would allow us to make observations that confirm the superior explanatory power of his theory, over the predictions of evolution. Gary should be able to tell Richard Lenski what to expect in his evolution experiments, that evolution doesn't explain.


Quote:
You are still referring to RNA as having memory though. Perhaps you are confusing current sequence with "memory". If you could point out how molecules remember previous configurations we might make progress. I would suggest that molecules have no memory of previous configurations and the only sequence which can be read from RNA and DNA molecules is the sequence they have now.


Quote:
It must be Thursday, cause Gary is spamming the thread with that Ayala and Coluzzi paper again. Gary, that paper still does not say what you think it does and still does not support your assertions.


Quote:
It doesn't matter to Gary that his not-even-a-theory doesn't make any predictions at all. He can just make up a "prediction" and then ignore it when it's falsified. Like he did when I falsified his claim that the cambrian explosion should be followed by a "massive, near-exponential increase in information". Oddly enough, once that had been shown to him, it was suddenly what his not-even-a-theory had predicted all along.


Quote:
Mitochondrial Eve is not a fixed individual. A new historical individual becomes Mitochondrial Eve with each new generation that is born.

Furthermore, Y-chromosome Adam & Mitochondrial Eve have several important characteristics. Firstly, they lived many thousands of years apart and therefore did not interbreed, have children or marry. Mitochondrial Eve may or may not have eaten a fruit from a tree, but Y-chromosome Adam certainly knew nothing of it if she did.

Secondly, references in the scientific literature to Adam & Eve refer to Y-chromosome Adam & Mitochondrial Eve, and not to any purported biblical couple. There are no indications in the scientific literature that Adam & Eve were ever contemporary and there are certainly no speculations at all that they were the progenitors of the human race. The reason why there are no such indications or speculations is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Adam & Eve were ever contemporary.

Finally, despite the unceasing efforts of sharp-eyed but regrettably dull-witted creationists, usage of Adam & Eve in scientific context has no religious or mythological connotations whatsoever. The tiresome efforts of those people and of comparatively uninformed people such as yourself will not succeed in ascribing mythological significance to a convenient label, bestowed upon two non-contemporary and completely unremarkable individuals, by scientists who, after all, are only human.


Quote:
For that model of intelligence to work, you need memory and you have not yet demonstrated anywhere in this thread that memory exists at a molecular level. No memory, no intelligence so Gary, point out where molecular intelligence stores its memories.


Quote:
That is his peer review. Some random, mainly anonymous forumites could not find fault with it that he (as supreme arbiter of such matters) considered to be significant. Throw in the fact that his position on a number of key matters seems to be ever changing, so that if you are not arguing against whatever he currently favours, you are attacking a strawman (hell, if you are not even arguing with him at all, you are attacking a strawman).

With reviewing this rigorous, it is no wonder it has been adopted by schools for teaching next school year.


Sun Sep 04, 2011 6:02 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Massachusetts
Post Re: Newest Version – Theory of Intelligent Design
-
I see that the forum's quote-miner has already been busy at work trying to stop-science. Too bad they don't have the candor to show what is really happening:

Gary S. Gaulin wrote:
Quote:
It was never covered Gary, you just asserted that molecules have memory and never demonstrated where it resided or the mechanism for its action.

This alone from the "Molecular Intelligence" section proves that you are talking trash:

Quote:
REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 - ADDRESSABLE MEMORY

In living things molecular intelligence survives time and environment through continual replication of a genetic Addressable Memory where output actions are stored as coded genes that catalyze production of many kinds of proteins. Genes are stored in their respective chromosome, or in simple genomes form a circular loop called a plasmid. But without a mechanism that can make intelligent use of the genetic memory, all you have are a number of coded DNA crystals that like dust will blow away with the wind.

In living things the “memory core” of a virus or cell is always made of RNA and/or DNA crystal, a “living genome” that can be extracted then sequenced, with a three nucleotides (in DNA letters A,C,T,G) per codon triplet coding for twenty-something amino acids from the one of four possible nucleotides. We can here expect a properly functioning problem solving intelligence as simple as the previous self-replicating RNA (or similar starting point) to in time eventually learn how to achieve that next emergent level of complexity, that requires a three letter codon design and more complex genome such as ours.

Addressing change mechanisms of this Memory include duplications, transpositions (jumping genes), self-induced hypermutation, deletions, chromosome territory pinching-off, crossover exchange, conjugation (cell addressed communication/sharing), chromosome fusion/fission (also speciation mechanism) and homing endonuclease (direct addressing to store new data at specific location). Outside changes to coding (also called "mutations") are for the most part "error corrected" to eliminate them. The living genome maintains control of what happens in regards to code changes, does not leave that up to “random chance”.

One way specific Addressing of a molecular Memory is achieved is by genetic elements known as homing endonuclease genes (HEGs) that home in on a particular portion of the DNA, inactivate a gene and insert a copy of itself in the deactivated gene. This homing/addressing occurs in the sperm cells, is passed on to successive generations. Homing endonucleases are a type of restriction enzyme typically encoded by introns or inteins. They act on the cellular DNA of the cells that synthesize them, in the opposite alleles of the genes that encode them.

The information increase of a genome is achievable because of the way important genes and other coding elements are replicated and on occasion change coding in a way that it becomes a new successful response to environment. Even where it is not helpful change it would not necessarily be fatal due to still having original unchanged genes (copied from) to perform the vital tasks. In the same way we backup important files on our computers the genome has a mechanism where entire genes are selectively replicated.

Molecularly Addressed regulation sites turn genes on when they are needed, then metabolic pathway molecular feedback turns off before they start overproducing. Replicating additional genes would help it build up levels of mRNA (for manufacture of their respective protein product) faster, but not necessarily change the amount present in the cell because of production rate of each gene being controlled to only produce what is needed. There are then more than enough viable copies to replace ones that may go bad. Not producing anything useful could make it prone to being chemically switched off or eliminated by the epigenetic success gauging part of the mechanism not finding that useful to it anymore.

Cells often have more than one chromosome each working with the other but each are an independent molecular formation that function as independently addressable units called chromosome territories. Molecules in a chromosome territory work-site that do not have a function would have a tendency to be pushed out or consumed by the enzyme metabolism machinery active inside one. It then follows that "streamlining" of a genome is process where "pinching off" genes out of the active work-site in time eliminates them from the genome. Here the genome itself determines which genes are eliminated and which genes are recopied as often as are necessary to keep up with demand for the product that they code for.

During the replication stage of the cell cycle these chromosomes supercoil to the shape shown in ‘A’ of the below illustration which makes it possible for the copies to be separated from each other without tangling. After replication the chromosomes uncoil then resume production which forms chromosome territories similar to the computer image shown in ‘B’ of the illustration.

Image

Each compartment works both independently and intermingling with neighboring chromosome territories[20][21] as shown below in a real cell:

Image

Transcription foci/factories (in blue) are found within areas of intermingling between Chromosome 3 (in red) and the remaining genome (in green), and may mediate functional interactions between them.
From: Chanut F (2006) Interphase Chromosomes Mingle with Their Peers [20]., and Branco MR, Pombo A (2006) Intermingling of Chromosome Territories in Interphase Suggests Role in Translocations and Transcription-Dependent Associations.

There is here an organization present that allows each compartment to specialize in a certain gene driven function, a localized form of addressing.

Sequencing of genome DNA shows the entire contents of a memory. But this memory is useless without the ability to address and control its information. It would be like a brain that does everything in memory all at once or does nothing at all. Therefore sensory feedback molecules must switch genes on/off or somewhere in between. Epigenetic switching provides a partially inherited moment-to-moment response to sensory information that is required through one lifetime.

_________________
Premise:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Google Viewer
MS Word Format


Sun Sep 04, 2011 6:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 am
Posts: 2538
Post Re: Newest Version – Theory of Intelligent Design
Quote:
I see that the forum's quote-miner has already been busy at work trying to stop-science. Too bad they don't have the candor to show what is really happening


Every forum that you frequent, including this one, provides you with similar responses. Consider your paper peer reviewed; the consensus has spoken: your writing is not science.

We debunked the memory issue at length on this forum already. The Rational Skepticism thread debunks it as well. It's time to rethink your ideas.


Last edited by compsciguy on Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Sep 04, 2011 6:37 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Massachusetts
Post Re: Newest Version – Theory of Intelligent Design
compsciguy wrote:
Quote:
I see that the forum's quote-miner has already been busy at work trying to stop-science. Too bad they don't have the candor to show what is really happening

Every forum that you frequent, including this one, provides you will similar responses. Consider your paper peer reviewed; the consensus has spoken: your writing is not science.

We debunked the memory issue at length on this forum already. The Rational Skepticism thread debunks it as well. It's time to rethink your ideas.


You already proved to have no science to the contrary, either. Only evidence you have brought to the table to be judged is your willingness to resort to intellectual dishonesty as a way to achieve your political goals.

And how convenient of you to leave out all that does not achieve your religious/political agenda against science. Where is this one and others that show you're not fooling all the people all of the time?

CharlieM wrote:
Quote:
Shrunk:
However, while these ideas could be described as non-Darwinian, they still accept the basic precepts of evolutionary theory, such as universal common ancestry and descent with modification, and do not involve positing some form of "intelligence" driving evolution. Which is to say they have nothing to do with the raving fuckwittery being espoused here by Gary and Charlie.


Show me where Gary or myself have questioned universal common ancestry and descent with modification. What you are saying is that people like Gary should not be searching for other theories to explain the development of life. Isn't that a bit of a science-stopper? Front loading of individual organisms is an observed fact, the plan is there at the beginning. But any theory that hints at front loading for life as a whole should be ridiculed and labelled as "raving fuckwittery". So much for the willingness of advocates of the current paradigm to be questioned and challenged.


Only thing you are helping to prove is how successful your anti-science campaign has been, and how creepy you actually are by your example of only quote-mining things that keep your deception going.

Scientific evidence to the contrary of what is stated here is required. Otherwise accept that the theory already won and all that is left is the usual deception from your side to make it seem like you won:

Quote:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby electromagnetic force created bonds (covalent, polar covalent, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) are the “behavioral cause” of molecular intelligence, which is the “intelligent cause” of cellular intelligence, which is the “intelligent cause” of multicellular intelligence. In this way an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in multiple levels of self-similar organization to produce an entity behaviorally in their own image, likeness.

_________________
Premise:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Google Viewer
MS Word Format


Sun Sep 04, 2011 7:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:55 am
Posts: 438
Location: Washington, DC
Post Re: Newest Version – Theory of Intelligent Design
Gary doesn't know what quote-mining means. lol.

_________________
"Your comments here aren't based on anything other than secular reasoning and they have no merit at all." ~ ABO


Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Massachusetts
Post Re: Newest Version – Theory of Intelligent Design
Oh Henry wrote:
Gary doesn't know what quote-mining means. lol.

Quote:
Fallacy of quoting out of context
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of ... of_context

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]

Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.[2]


Passages were "removed from its surrounding matter (my thread) in such a way as to distort its intended meaning".

Since some of the respondents were already "quoting an authority on the subject out of context" it was easy for compsciguy to "misrepresent that authority" by making sure what is "removed from its surrounding matter" only includes what will most "distort its (the entire threads) intended meaning".

From your response I can sense that you approve of the deceptive practice, whatever you want to call it.

_________________
Premise:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Google Viewer
MS Word Format


Tue Sep 06, 2011 1:57 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:48 am
Posts: 2538
Post Re: Newest Version – Theory of Intelligent Design
I copy-and-pasted remarks that parallel the remarks on this forum and there were tons of them. I did not distort any of their views. They all said the same thing: your work is not science.


Tue Sep 06, 2011 10:07 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:55 am
Posts: 438
Location: Washington, DC
Post Re: Newest Version – Theory of Intelligent Design
Gary looked up quote-mining and still doesn't know what it means. lol.

Gary S. Gaulin wrote:
And how convenient of you to leave out all that does not achieve your religious/political agenda against science.


Gary says csg has an anti-science religious agenda.
ABO keeps posting to say that science is a religion.
Mike is desperately trying to get csg, et. al. to say science implies certain religious views, while apparently believing (much like csg, et al) that science does not imply those religious views.

A couple of observations...
1. Watching the Three Stooges clunk their heads together is more fun than it should be.
2. Religion, it seems, is the ultimate Old Maid card. Even religious folks want to pin it in someone else.

_________________
"Your comments here aren't based on anything other than secular reasoning and they have no merit at all." ~ ABO


Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:04 am
Posts: 1456
Location: Massachusetts
Post Re: Newest Version – Theory of Intelligent Design
I have to mention that the first paragraph was restructured, and "nonrandom behavior of matter" had to be added back in order to be precise.

Quote:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in multiple levels of self-similar organization to produce an entity behaviorally in their own image, likeness. Here nonrandom behavior of matter produced by electromagnetic force created bonds (covalent, polar covalent, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) is the “behavioral cause” of molecular intelligence, which is the “intelligent cause” of cellular intelligence, which is the “intelligent cause” of multicellular intelligence.

_________________
Premise:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Google Viewer
MS Word Format


Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:43 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 10 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.